Posted - 01/02/2010 : 14:38:22 Thoughts on Mike Green's ability as a defenceman. You hear everything from he's a fourth forward to he's very good in his own end. Let's hear it.

24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

HawkinOilCountry

Posted - 01/06/2010 : 09:51:51 Just how many offensive D-men does Team Canada need exactly?

Duncan Keith is second in the league in Defenseman Points. I would posit that Seabrook is a big help for him in that regard. I watch these guys play every chance I get and as a Tandem they're amazing. So to me it's easy to figure out why they're on the team.

Boyle I would guess that one of the big reasons he made the team is because Marleau, Heatley and Thornton also made the team. Maybe they want these 4 guys together on the Powerplay? Thats the only thing I can think of to have him over Bouwmeester or Green.

Neids and Pronger seem like they got on because they're Neids and Pronger. This is your legacy line. They're there because of past deeds not current acheivements.

Weber I know nothing about. Doughty is young, talented, and is going to bring a lot of youthful exuberance to the team. Which isn't a bad thing I guess.

I don't think I'd have been surprised to see Green on the team, but I also wasn't surprised to see him not on the team. He didn't fare well in the '09 playoffs (yes I watched almost every single Washington game), and I think that was likely a major factor in deciding not to include him. in the Pittsburgh and Rangers' series I would say he without a doubt was a defensive liability. He's doing better this year to be sure.

Maybe all it boiled down too was they had an easier time envisioning rolls for the others? Maybe it was just a matter of Green's puzzle peice not fitting as well as say, Boyle's or Weber's?

Like I said, I know nothing about Weber, and very little about Doughty. Sure they're good, but maybe someone could enlighten me as to where they fit on this team? And why they fit better than JBo or Green?

The arena wall in chicago should be credited with a goal.

slozo

Posted - 01/06/2010 : 09:29:52 I wouldn't be pissed at all if Bouwmeester was added due to an injury - I think he is another defenceman that surely should have been on the team in the first place. If it is Weber or Boyle who go down and it's Bouwmeester over Green, again - I would be confused as to the reasoning of it, but I'd still be happy that Bouwmeester is finally on the team as he deserves.

In the stuff I read before the team was picked, I'd hazard that about 50% had Green picked, actually. And the fact that many didn't pick him is probably just as much a reflection of their connections to the team, and having an inside scoop on who they were getting, or who Yzerman waslooking at more. Like the Bergeron thing . . . a few people picked him to be on the team at the end, not because those writers specifically would have chosen him, but because they had an inside scoop - the correct one, as it turns out.

Writers want to look smart and savvy and increase their cred, so the main objective is to pick the team that Yzerman chooses in the end . . . not the team that THEY think should be picked. There's a huge difference. And the people on this site and hundreds of other sites feed off those predictions more than anything.

This is exactly the reason why I really respect the opinions of someone like Willus, for example, over some talking head on TSN or CBC . . . he makes observations and sorts through stats, THEN forms an opinion (as opposed to what most people do). This is why it is so maddening for him and I when discussing players such as Green, Weber, Phaneuf and others, and sharing opinions with people who have not seen a lick of their play and simply parrot opinions that are not their own.

So no, I do not think many talking heads not picking Green for the team means a lot at all.

Just how pissed are you gonna be when one of the Team Canada D-men goes down with injuryy and Bouwmeester is selected to replace him?

I'd be willing to bet that even if it's Boyle (who most consider a big reason Green's not there due to his offense and pp skills), JBo is the replacement.

This is not to say that Green was never considered and he's prob in the top 10, but with all the talk i heard, everything i read, all the sports blogs, etc, very few, prob 15% had him pegged as a selection. I think this says something......

I agree, it could have a lot to do with media feeding off other media, but lets face it, they know more than we do. They see more games than we do. They prob get some inside info, at least more than we do? There's very few "experts" out there who are even half as mad / disappointed as you are that he's not there. I think that says a lot.

slozo

Posted - 01/06/2010 : 07:52:49 No, Green is not a Paul Coffey . . . but he is the Paul Coffee of our day. Big difference. What I mean is, he is the premier offensive defenceman of our day, leading the charge by a fair margin (and for the forseeable future - no doubt it is early days).

Isn't checking a defensive ability?Isn't giving breakout passes a defensive ability (think about it, it is . . . poor ones get picked off for great chances against)?Isn't taking out a guy on the rush a defensive ability?Isn't preventing a pass a defensive ability?

I mentioned and commented on all of those, Beans.

What other defensive abilities didn't I comment on . . . uh, I guess blocked shots, hits . . . and a bunch of other intangibles like ability to skate backwards and not missing defensive assignments that can't be measured by stats.

Irvin in your stats are you going stricktly by D-Men? If not I think these stats are clouded a bit.

I don't see them being all that clouded, while including all positions. I'd expect a solid d-man standing high above most forwards when it comes to blocking shots, takeaways & hits.

Especially hits and blocked shots. It's what they do.

Irvine/prez.

Beans15

Posted - 01/04/2010 : 10:13:12 Slozo, of today or any other day, Mike Green is not the Paul Coffey. Simple put, there are tons of players through the years that were offensive defensemen. Very few changed the way the game is played.

Coffey is one of them, Mike Green is not.

TODAY.OR.ANY.OTHER.DAY

And I read your post now for the 5th time. I still see nothing about his defensive abilities and your latest posts still doesn't say much either. I agree that offensively, he is the cream of today's crop. But specifically for the defensemen position, it take more than offense to be brilliant. He is clearly know for one side of the puck and one side only.

tbar

Posted - 01/04/2010 : 09:40:56 Irvin in your stats are you going stricktly by D-Men? If not I think these stats are clouded a bit.

irvine

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 22:03:02 Mike Green, in my opinion, is average at best in his own end. Green thinks one thing, offense. And I find all of his focus gears towards that, causing a judgment lapse in his own end very often.

Perhaps this is how he's asked to play? Offense first. Maybe if he were asked to switch roles and focus solely on the defensive aspect, he'd perform at a much higher level? I can't answer this, as i'm not his coach. So I can't ask him to do so.

However, I'd not say Mike Green is an above-average hitter. Green has 62 hits in 40 games played this season. That's tied for 123rd in the league. So I guess if he is an above average hitter, he should utilize this in his game some more, it'd certainly help his team.

As for getting in shooting/passing lanes, he has 57 blocked shots on the year (Tied - 75th), and 18 takeaways (Tied - 165th). These do not seem like great numbers for an above-average defensmen to me. H does have 35 giveaways though... which is good for 27th in the league. heh.

Irvine/prez.

slozo

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 21:44:18 Actually Beans, the question was just thoughts on Green's abilities as a defenceman. I gave them.

He's an above average checker, and takes his man well, although he's always placed high in his own zone for breakouts, that;s just the system that they play in Washington - fast breakouts. From what I've seen of his defensive abilities, above average (taking out a guy on the rush, preventing a pass, etc) although because of the system Washington plays and the way they use him as a sort of forward a lot of the time, he has a high amount of giveaways as a d-man (as do other offensive d-men, like Boyle). But just like a forward, most of those giveaways are in neutral ice or in the offensive zone, thus not resulting in a huge chance for the opposition.

Also, please re-read this. Actually read it, really.

"I have seen the best of him, and he is awesome - exactly what I said, the Paul Coffey of our day. That doesn't mean he is Coffey, or plays exactly like him . . . it just mean that he is as big an offensive threat today as Paul Coffee was in his day. "

Not sure how that means I am saying he is going to be as great as Paul Coffee was . . . although I contend it's a possibility, it's not very likely, as we don't have that brand of hockey these days that happened in the 80's. Reading comprehension, people . . . OF. OUR. DAY.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

irvine

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 15:51:13 I'd have to agree 100% with you. Mike Green is no Orr, Coffey or Bourque.

May he be one day? Perhaps. But i'm not going to bet my last dollar on it. He's a good offensive-defencemen but he lacks currently in the defensive side of things. He needs a LOT of work in his own end. Lacks effort and defensive skill.

Irvine/prez.

Beans15

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 15:37:23

quote:Originally posted by irvine

*cough Bourque cough*

I put Ray Bourque #2 d-man alltime, but that's just me. :PCoffey would be #3 in my opinion.

Irvine/prez.

Irvine, I would put Bourque ahead of Coffey on my list of all around defensemen as well

However, I said "Offensive Defensemen". That is pretty hard to argue that Paul Coffey is a comfy #2 in that slot.

Regardless, Mike Green's name doesn't belong with any of them. That is my point.

irvine

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 14:43:08 *cough Bourque cough*

I put Ray Bourque #2 d-man alltime, but that's just me. :PCoffey would be #3 in my opinion.

Irvine/prez.

Beans15

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 13:58:06 My fact were not 100%. I see that now that I looked at all the rosters and should have before my post.

My bad, there were 5 of the 10. Erhoff, Kubina, Michalek, Suter, and Seabrook are all slated to by Olympians.

My bad.

Alex116

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 13:54:43

quote:Originally posted by slozo

He's a dynamic offensive force.

Fast skater. Very good passer. Brett Hull slapshot (same velocity and accuracy, that is). Sees the ice very well.

No, he he didn't have a good playoffs in the second round against Pittsburgh last year. Why? Because they keyed in on him big time, and it worked - he was inexperienced, and it got to him, and he looked lost at times, and was a shadow of himself. My contention is that Pittsburgh's goal was to key in on him, and let Ovechkin get tired with one man rushes . . . and it finally worked in the end, despite Ovie's heroics.

At any rate, if all you watched was that electrifying second round between the Pens abd Caps, you saw the worst of Green.

I have seen the best of him, and he is awesome - exactly what I said, the Paul Coffey of our day. That doesn't mean he is Coffey, or plays exactly like him . . . it just mean that he is as big an offensive threat today as Paul Coffee was in his day.

And Beans . . . for you to get so offended back in another thread when I stated this, and for you to give me a slap down for describing a player like this that you yourself contend you haven't seen much of - this is wrong.

To me, he's the number one defenceman for offensive ability, and he'll only get better. And I say this because I have seen him play a fair amount, and really like him as an exciting and dynamic player.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Read what i put in BOLD above. Is this the guy you want on Team Canada? A guy who, under pressure, performed as a "shadow of himself"? A guy who, in the pressure situation of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, looked "lost at times"? A guy who is "inexperienced"???

Funny how Luongo has a bad game, in what was a very important game, in the Chicago/Vancouver series and many write him off as a guy who can't win under pressure, but a lot of people still think Green should be on Team Canada?

Canucks Man

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 13:08:38 Hey beans, while im on your side about the arguement with green, I don't think he should be on team Canada for the reasons you have already said, but you when arguing you should get your facts straight, 5 of the 10 players you mentioned are olympians, and poti is an ex olympian.

CANUCKS RULE!!!

Beans15

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 11:10:28 Willus, these are very telling stats indeed. I also looked at the +/-/60 minutes and noticed that the top 10 in order are:

ErhoffSchultzGreenKubinaSmidLetangPotiSuterZ. MichalekSeabrook

Interesting that only 2 of these 10 are Olympians.

Further to that, looking at the GA/60, Green is worse than any other Canadian Olympian picks.

I also suggest that these stats lend themselves to high scoring teams. If you look at the 3 Washington players, a Chicago player, Phoenix, Atlanta, Vancouver, and Edmonton. With the exception of the Oilers and Phoenix the others teams are all the top 5 in the league. Futher to that, these defensemen are the top line players who often play with the top line forward and nearly always against the oppositions 3rd line shutdown guys who are not normally scorers.

Overall, I agree compeltely that Boudreau is using Green very effectively. That is playing him in offensive situations and not in defensive situations the majority of the time.

I don't think this says he is standout defensively as much as it says his coach uses him very well and he is very successful in those situations.

willus3

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 10:13:12 Personally I think Green's defensive misgivings are grossly exaggerated. That said I do not see enough of him to give a fair critique. I do not normally like to use stats for the sole basis for an opinion, however here I have to. So here are some very interesting numbers to consider.

The numbers are for this year, even strength only, minimum 30 games played, minimum 15 mins/game at even strength. I've sorted this page by the +/-ON/60. This stat takes the goals for per 60 minutes - the goals against per 60 minutes to give the +/- per 60 minutes of even strength hockey.

Have a look at the numbers and where Green is in relation to other defencemen. Remember also to consider which of these players are playing top minutes against the other teams top lines at even strength.

Now also keep in mind how effectively the coach is using the player. This is something most overlook in comparisons. It would seem Boudreau is using Mike Green very effectively indeed.

Click on the GAON/60 and GFON/60 as well. Is interesting to see who is where.

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 09:01:35 Hey Slozo, great opinion on his offensive abilities and I can't really disagree with any of it. However, the question at had is about his defensive abilities as well as his offensive abilities??

I read nothing in your post about anything other than offensive abilities.

What about defensive abilities??

Do you have an opinion on that??

And I was not off base by my comments arguing the comparison between Paul Coffey and Mike Green because it is laughable. Brian Leech maybe. Phil Housley maybe. Sergei Zubov maybe.

Realistically, Paul Coffey built off what Bobby Orr started and helped changed the game of Hockey. Paul Coffey was the 2nd best pure offensive defensemen to ever play. Before Paul Coffey, there wasn't an 'offensive defensemen' position. There are only 2 defensemen in the NHL history with more than 700 points and better than a PPG average.

Mike Green is the best offensive defensemen in the game today, but to compare him to the best or 2nd best of all time(depending on the Orrr/Coffey arguement) is not a fair comparison in my opinion. He is great, but not game changing. Not the way Orr and Coffey were.

As I said, there are a ton of very gifted offensive defensemen that have played through the year and I've already mentioned a few of them that Green should and could be compared to. Paul Coffey is not one of them.

Thinks it's wrong all you want, but that is my opinion. I can have and post what ever opinion I want as long as it conforms with the guidelines of the forum. This opinion does.

Guest9298

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 06:17:36 First off I think Mike Green is the best offensive defenceman in the league. That being said A perfect example of why he was left off team Canada was the game winning goal for the Kings yesterday. Where was the effort on this play? This was a game winning shorthanded goal.

There is no doubt the talent is there but IMO a defencemans first responsibility is to playing defence and at times, with Green it is diffinately lacking.

Guest9198

Posted - 01/03/2010 : 06:14:54 Also, to be fair, wasn't it said that he was playing injured in last year's playoffs? It's not like Yzerman playing on 1 leg, but it will severely affect your performance...

slozo

Posted - 01/02/2010 : 23:21:56 He's a dynamic offensive force.

Fast skater. Very good passer. Brett Hull slapshot (same velocity and accuracy, that is). Sees the ice very well.

No, he he didn't have a good playoffs in the second round against Pittsburgh last year. Why? Because they keyed in on him big time, and it worked - he was inexperienced, and it got to him, and he looked lost at times, and was a shadow of himself. My contention is that Pittsburgh's goal was to key in on him, and let Ovechkin get tired with one man rushes . . . and it finally worked in the end, despite Ovie's heroics.

At any rate, if all you watched was that electrifying second round between the Pens abd Caps, you saw the worst of Green.

I have seen the best of him, and he is awesome - exactly what I said, the Paul Coffey of our day. That doesn't mean he is Coffey, or plays exactly like him . . . it just mean that he is as big an offensive threat today as Paul Coffee was in his day.

And Beans . . . for you to get so offended back in another thread when I stated this, and for you to give me a slap down for describing a player like this that you yourself contend you haven't seen much of - this is wrong.

To me, he's the number one defenceman for offensive ability, and he'll only get better. And I say this because I have seen him play a fair amount, and really like him as an exciting and dynamic player.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Beans15

Posted - 01/02/2010 : 18:50:14 I don't see much Washington either, so I have to go on limited information. However, what I have watched I have not been impressed him. More so the effort than anything else. Specifically speaking about the playoffs last season(which every Washington game was on TV) was plays really uninspired in his own end. Lazy on the puck and didn't use that 6'2" frame as well as one would think he could.

That's what I watched anyway. Not as much he couldn't do the job as much as he didn't look like he really wanted to.

That's what I have noticed. He's been streaky offensively this year as well. He went 17 games in only 1 goal and then had 3 goals in 4 games.

leigh

Posted - 01/02/2010 : 15:27:59 Well sadly I don't get to see him play much...or gladly I suppose, since wouldn't want Washington in the Northwest against my Flames. So I pretty much have to base my assessment on the stats that I can find.

Obviously he's a gifted blueline goal scorer with 58 goals in the last 3 seasons and this one is not even done yet. He'll probably crack twenty netters this year. As far as assists go he is pretty potent there too with 109 in the last 3 years. So no doubt he can rack up the points. Most teams would kill for that kind of offensive potential. Imagine this guy in 3 or 4 years?

Interestingly I hear that he is not very defensive-minded, but if you look at his +/- he's a +44 in the last 3 seasons. Not bad at all. So I can only speculate that people mean he makes big noticeable mistakes. But not unlike Dion Phaneuf that could be attributed to an young offensive defenseman learning the game; Phaneuf is notorious for putting himself out of position to make a big hit. Now, I'm not at all saying they are the same type of d-man, merely that they are both young and learning their craft - often at the expense of smart defensive decisions. A common occurence in young offensive-minded d-men. Given some time most will grow out of this. Again, just speculating here.

Love to get someone's opinion who gets to watch a lot of Caps games. Anyone?